In a circle of strong, ambitious women striving to uplift each other, one member’s struggles cast a shadow over their shared purpose. Mandy’s vulnerability and unwillingness to change challenge the group’s ideals, stirring frustration and compassion in equal measure.
Caught between empathy and exasperation, the women grapple with the limits of support and the painful truth that not everyone can—or will—break free from their own cycles. Their bond is tested as they confront the fragile line between helping and enabling.
WIBTA if I excluded another woman from our informal women’s group?
Dr. Brené Brown, a research professor known for her work on vulnerability, shame, and empathy, often discusses the difference between empathy and taking on another person’s struggle to the point of burnout. Brown emphasizes that true empathy requires staying present without taking on the emotion as your own. In this scenario, the group members, particularly the OP, appeared to reach a limit where offering support felt like drowning rather than connecting.
The core conflict here involves boundary setting within a social structure that blurred its initial purpose. The group was intended for professional and political discussion, but Mandy’s consistent display of emotional distress—crying, apology, and reliance—pushed the dynamic into an unintentional, ill-equipped emotional support role. When the group members, including the OP, lacked the professional training or personal bandwidth to manage this level of emotional labor, the natural response was withdrawal, which manifested as avoidance and ultimately, exclusion. The OP’s decision to leave and the subsequent coordination among the others demonstrates a collective failure in direct communication regarding shifting group dynamics, favoring avoidance over a difficult conversation about unmet expectations.
The OP’s action of excluding Mandy without direct communication was inappropriate as it inflicted emotional pain on Mandy, who perceived the group as her ‘only support system.’ A more constructive approach would have involved a group discussion—perhaps moderated by the OP before she left—stating clearly that the group’s structure needed to return to its career focus, or suggesting Mandy seek professional help, reinforcing the boundary rather than enacting an eviction. Future handling should involve clear, pre-agreed-upon group charters regarding scope and managing emotional overload.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
” a group of 6 women started meeting about 2 times a month to talk about our careers, politics, and feminism. ”
This isn’t a therapy session for Mandy. You’re within your rights to exclude her and go back to the original purpose of the group
I think the balance has been restored here. I’m not sure if this was the best way, but it was an attempt at bringing balance and an attempt at being kind and subtle about it. I wouldn’t sweat over it.
The original poster acted to protect her own emotional energy and maintain the intended focus of the career-oriented group, leading her to withdraw and coordinate an informal exclusion of a member, Mandy, whose persistent struggles became emotionally draining for the group.
Is it justifiable for a self-defined professional support group to exclude a member whose needs consistently shift the group’s focus toward unaddressed personal crises, or does the principle of feminist solidarity require holding space regardless of the emotional toll on the majority?
